F 52 

H165 
Copy 1 



WHY THE EARLY INHABITANTS 

OF 

VEFLMOISTT 
DISCLAIMED THE JUEISDIOTION OF NEW YORK, 

AND ESTABLISHED 

'AN INDEPENDENT GOVERNMENT. 



AN ADDRESS 



DELIVERED BEFORE THE 



P 



|orl jjistorupd ferietn, 



DECEMBER 4th, I860. 



BV 



HILAND HALL. 



BENNINGTON, VT. : 
C. A. PIERCE: & COMPANY, PRINTERS. 

1872. 



Why the early inhabitants of Vermont disclaimed the juris- 
diction of New Yorky and established an independent government. 



AN ADDRESS 



Dl 1 1\ 1 RED BEFORE THE 



\m |)orh faoriral §)orietij, 



^ 



I) EC E M B E R 4th, i860, 



HILAND HALL. 



BENNINGTON, VT. : 
C. A. PIERCE & COMPANY, PRINTERS 

187,. 



TV? 



/3 



<0 



ADDRESS 



It is known to the readers of general history that the 
territory now the State of Vermont was formerly claimed by 
the State of New York; that the King of Great Britain 
prior to our revolution had made an order in council that 
it should constitute a part of that province; that the people who 
inhabited the territory (which was then known by the name of 
the New Hampshire Grants.) were dissatisfied with the conduct 
ot the New York Government towards them; that they resisted 
its authority, revolted from its jurisdiction, and set up for them- 
selves an independent commonwealth, which was finally recog- 
nized by New York as such, and admitted a member of the 
federal Union. 

The causes which produced this revolutionary separation 
Irom New York are believed not to have been so generally 
sought for as to be familiarly understood. I propose to occupy 
about half an hour of your time this evening in exhibiting to you 
the causes of this revolt — in the light in which they appear to a 
\ ermonter. You w ill, of course, understand that the subject 
cannot be fully discussed in so brief a space, and that all you 
are to expect is an outline view. 

One hundred years ago at this time England was in a high 
state of exultation at the accession of the young King George 
the Third, to the throne, and over the news then recently 



(4) 

received of the complete extinguishment of the French power in 
America. This latter event had been accomplished in the previ- 
ous month of September (1760,) by the capture of Montreal, 
and the formal surrender of the province of New France to the 
English arms; and it furnished an occasion for great and extra- 
ordinary rejoicing in this country. It not only put an end to a 
long and bloody war in which the colonies, particularly those of 
New England and New York, had largely participated, but 
furnished the frontiers of those provinces with perfect security 
against foreign and Indian depredations — a security which they 
had never before enjoyed. 

At that time the territory now embraced by the State of 
Vermont, with a trifling exception, was an uninhabited wilder, 
ness. It had, however, been frequently traversed by the men of 
New England in their expeditions to the theatre of war in the 
vicinity of Lakes George and Champlain, and the fertility of its 
soil had become familiarly and favorably known to them. No 
sooner, therefore, was the territory opened for safe occupation by 
the conquest of Canada, than a strong desire pervaded the New 
England colonies to emigrate to it. Settlements were accordingly 
commenced in the spring of 1 76 1 , and continued thereafter to be 
rapidly made. In the course of four or five years the settlers 
could be numbered by thousands; they had cleared lands and 
erected dwellings and out-houses; opened roads; organized 
churches and built houses of worship, and established schools, 
and were beginning to enjoy many of the advantages of cultiva- 
ted society, with favorable prospects for future improvement and 
prosperity. 

The settlers occupied their lands and held their titles under 
charters from the province of New Hampshire, whose jurisdic- 
tion they acknowledged. These charters were issued by Gov. 
BENNING Wentworth, under the great seal of the province, 
and in the name of the King — each covering a township of about 
six miles square ; and the charters conferred on the future inhab- 
itants the usual corporate powers of New England townships. 

In the spring of the year 1765 the settlers were informed by 
a proclamation of Lieut.-Governor CoLDEN, then administering 
the Government of New York for the King, that his Majesty, by 
an Order in Council of the 20th day of July preceding, had de- 
clared the western bank of Connecticut River to be the boun- 



15) 

darj between the provinces of New Hampshire and New York- 
and the proclamation called upon them to yield due obedience 

to the laws and officers of the latter province. 

Immediately upon the promulgation of this order of the 
Ring, the New Hampshire claimants were treated by Lieut- 
Governor Colden as trespassers upon the lands they occupied, 
and he proceeded to grant them anew to others. Then came on 
the long and bitter strife for the possession of these lands. The 
new claimants demanded their surrender, and when refused, suits 
in ejectment for them followed ; then trials at Albany, in which 
the New Hampshire charters are declared void and not allowed 
to be read to the jury ; verdicts for the plaintiffs; writs of pos- 
session issue; the Sheriff unable to execute them; the posse of 
the county of Albany called to the aid of the Sheriff, and marched 
three hundred strong to Bennington; the settlers appear in arms 
and the posse, sympathizing with them, refuse to act ; the power 
of the county being found ineffectual, application is made to 
Gen. Haldinand, commanding the King's forces in New York, 
and to the ministry in London, for a body of regular troops to 
enforce submission, and refused ; the New York rulers and claim- 
ants then resort to indirect measures ; their Opponents are indicted 
at Albany as rioters, and rewards offered for their apprehension ; 
remote lands are stealthily occupied by the New York claimants; 
the occupants are treated as intruders and frightened away, or 
driven off by force; more indictments for riots and threats of in- 
vasion by regular troops; formation under Ai.i.i \ and Warner 
of a military corps, — its members styling themselves Green 
Mountain Boys. — denominated by Colden '"the Bennington 
Mob"; summary condemnation and outlawry by the New York 
Assembly without trial, of Allen, Warner and others, leaders 
of the settlers; their defiant denunciation of this act of the 
Assembly; they meet in conventions, appoint committees of safe 
ty with extensive powers, and finally, in 1777, form a constitution 
of government as an independent State. 

During the period of tins controversy, the claims of New 
York were elaborately stated and ingeniously advocated on two 
occasions by James 1>i \m . an eminent lawyer of this city, 
and for several years a dele-ate m the Continental Congress from 
this State, and who had a deep personal interest in their success. 

The first of these arguments, ol which Mr. 1>i \\i was the 



(6) 

reputed author, is entitled " A state of the right of the colony of 
New York with respect to its eastern boundary on Connecticut 
River, so far as it concerns the late encroachments under New 
Hampshire," and was published by the authority ot the Colonial 
Assembly in 1773. The other document is an argument prepared 
by Mr. Duane to be used on the hearing of the Vermont ques- 
tion before Congress in 1780, and which is found in manuscript 
in the archives of this Historical Society.* These two docu- 
ments, so far as they relate to the origin of the claims of the re- 
spective parties, and the causes of their difference are substan- 
tially alike. They place the New York side ot the controversy 
in its most plausible light, and are calculated to give the casual 
reader a favorable impression in regard to the measures and posi- 
tion of the rulers of that province. But I feel bound to say that 
they are altogether unreliable. They are unreliable, not so much 
because the facts which are stated are untrue, as that they are 
unimportant to a right understanding of the questions discussed 
— the main facts upon which the proper solution of these ques- 
tions depend, being skillfully kept out of view. 

I cannot on this occasion enter into any detailed examina- 
tion of the several points made in these labored documents. I 
will, however, call your attention to a few of the most prominent 
errors of fcct and argument which pervade them, and render false 
the conclusions to be drawn from them. 

It is assumed and claimed then, in behalf of the New York 
colonial rulers that the early inhabitants of Vermont purchased 
the lands they held under New Hampshire, knowing their titles 
were of doubtful character, and that they were consequently to 
be considered in the light of voluntary trespassers upon the New 
York title. Nothing could be moie unfounded than this assump- 
tion. 

Prior to the Order of the King in Council, of July, 1764, be- 
fore mentioned, declaring Connecticut River to be the boundary 
between the two provinces, the eastern boundary of New York 
had always been understood, in New England from whence the 
settlers came, to be a line running from the southwest corner of 
Connecticut on Long Island Sound, northerly to Lake Cham- 
plain. It had been so laid down in all the maps of the American 
colonies which had been published, either in England or Amer- 
ica. I speak with much confidence on this point, having within 

*See Note i, at the end of tlii-, Address 



(7) 

the past twenty years examined all the maps of the colonies — 
and they are numerous — which 1 have been able to find, either 
in books or separately, in the principal public libraries in this 
country, including the old library of Congress, those of the 
States of Massachusetts and New York, of the New York His- 
torical Society, and that of Harvard College; and in all of 
them, without a single exception, is the before mentioned line 
known as the twenty mile line from the Hudson River, marked 
as the eastern boundary of New York, and the western boun" 
dary of New England. Among these maps may be particularly 
mentioned that of Dr. Mitchell, of the British American 
provinces, prepared at the request, and under the direction of- 
the English Board of Trade, and published in London in 1755, 
in which New Hampshire is made to extend westward to that 
twenty mile line, and to Lake Champlain, thus embracing the 
present territory of Vermont. This territory haH been repeated- 
ly recognized, and uniformly treated, by the English Crown and 
Ministry, as belonging to New England and New Hampshire, 
and never, as constituting a part of New York: and there can 
be no doubt whatever, that the settlers under New Hampshire 
were purchasers and occupiers of their land- in good faith, fully 
believing their titles to be valid.* 

Igain, it is claimed by Mr. Duane, in behalf of New York, 
that prior to the order of the King, of July, 1764, before men- 
tioned, the legal title of that province to extend eastward to 
every part of Connecticut River, and thus to embrace the terri- 
tory of the New Hampshire Grants, was 1 lear and unquestiona- 
ble, under the Charter of KLlNG CHARLES, the Second, to his 
brother, the Duke of York, in 1664. 

Although the words of this Charter would at first view seem 
to favor the construction given it by New York, yet its descrip- 
tive language, as a whole, is so ambiguous that all effort to use 
it to designate any territory with definite boundaries is unavail- 
ing.t Without going into a critical examination of its terms, 
which the occasion will not permit I think 1 may safely sa) that 
this Charter claim of New York, when tested by the light of con- 
temporaneous and subsequent history will be found at best to be 
of very doubtful character. I haVe only time to say of it now 
that, prior to the order of the King annexing the territo- 
ry of the New Hampshire Grants to New York, in 1764 — 
- 



(8) 

one hundred years after the date of the Charter — that province 
had never for a single moment exercised jurisdiction eastward to 
any part of Connecticut River : that the territory covered by 
those Grants had never been treated by the English Government 
as belonging to New York, but as before stated, as constituting a 
part of New Hampshire ; that there is the strongest reason to 
believe that the Charter of King Charles to the Duke of York 
in 1664, was not intended by the King, nor understood by the 
Duke, as designating Connecticut River as a definite boundary 
of the Duke's grant ; that the Charter, so far as it related to the 
main land, was designed to embrace the territory of New Neth- 
erland, then held by the Dutch, and that territory only, whatever 
on being conquered its extent or limitation might be found to be : 
that fourteen years prior to the date of the charter, a line less 
than twenty miles from the Hudson River had been established 
by treaty between the Governor of New Netherland and the 
Commissioners of the New England Colonies, as the Dutch 
eastern boundary, which treaty of boundary had been ratified by 
the States General of Holland; that immediately on the con- 
quest of New Netherland by the English, a few months after the 
date of the King's Charter, a twenty mile line was solemnly ad- 
judicated and determined by the King's Commissioners, who 
accompanied the expedition, as the eastern boundaiy of the 
Duke's grant ; that such boundary (being substantially the same 
with the present,) was recognized and acquiesced in by New 
York for more than three-quarters of a century, and that the first 
serious claim ever made by that province to extend eastward to 
Connecticut River, to the northward of the colony of Connec- 
ticut, was as late as the year 1750 — eighty-six years after the date 
of the Charter under which the claim was then made. 

The King's Order in Council, of July, 1764, by which the 
territory now Vermont was transferred from the jurisdiction of 
New Hampshire to that of New York, does not appear to have 
been founded on any considerations of public necessity or con- 
venience. It weakened a small province to increase the power 
and extent of a larger one ; and was made without consulting 
the feelings or interests of the people who were the subjects of 
the transfer, and contrary to their wishes. The reasons for mak- 
ing it were doubtless political — those of state policy. The ministry 
were then preparing their measures for taxing the colonies, and 



(9) 

were anxious to circumscribe within narrow limits the stubborn 
republican spirit of New England, from which they anticipated 
the strongest opposition. New York was at that time a favored 
colony. Cadwallar Colden, of high-toned, tory principles* 

who was then at the head of its administration, as Lieut.-Gov- 
emor, was aware of this favorable disposition of the ministry, 
ami quite willing to take advantage of it. ■ 

In urging on them the enlargement of his own government 
at the expense of the territory of New Hampshire, he uses lan- 
guage as follows : 

" The New Kngland governments," he says, "are founded 
on republican principles, and these principles are zealously incul- 
cated in their youth, in opposition to the principles of the con- 
stitution of Great Britain. The government of New York, on 
the contrary, is established, as nearly as may be, after the model 
of the English Constitution. Can it be good policy," continues 
Mr. Colden, "to diminish the power and extent of His Majes- 
ty's province of New York to extend the power anil influence of 
the others ? " 

The Ministry concurred with Lieut-Governor Colden in 
the policy of curtailing the power and influence of the republi- 
can colony, and hence its dismemberment for the benefit of the 
more aristocratic province. 

But the new jurisdiction, distasteful as it was to the settlers, 
would doubtless have been quietly submitted to if nothing more 
had been demanded. But Lieut.-Governor Colden and his 
council claimed that the King's order not only gave them the 
powers of government as far eastward as Connecticut River, but 
that it had a retrospective operation, and was to be construed as 
declaring that such had always been the extent of the province 
of New York. As a consequence of this ingenius interpretation, 
they held that all the grants which had been previously made by 
Wentworth, Governor of New Hampshire — having been of 
lands not within his province — were null and void, and that the 
title still remaining in the crown, the land was subject to be 
granted anew. 

It must have been plain to the rulers of New York that such 
new grants could not be made without doing great injustice to the 
claimants under New Hampshire. For even if it should be ad- 
mitted that the title of the settlers to the lands they occupied was 



(jo) 

not in legal strictness a valid one, still there could be no doubt 
that it was in a high degree equitable. The lands had been 
chartered in the name of the King, by one of his royal Govern- 
ors having apparent authority to grant them, and had been pur- 
chased and improved by the settlers in good faith, they fully 
believing in the validity of their titles. It would be manifestly 
unjust and oppressive in the King— a palpable fraud on his sub- 
jects, to allow another of his Governors to deprive them of 
property thus honestly acquired. Yet such fraud and oppression 
was attempted in the royal name and earnestly sought to be con- 
summated by the then ruling authorities of New York. The 
motive for this conduct on their part deserves particular consider- 
ation, and will now be inquired into. 

Among the emoluments of the King's colonial Governors, 
those connected with the land grants formed a very important 
part. This was especially the case in New York, where the fees 
exacted were much larger than in any other province, amounting 
to over two thousand dollars for every tract or township of six 
miles square — of which the Governor's share exceeded seven 
hundred dollars, the residue being divided between the Govern- 
or's Secretary, the Attorney General, the Surveyor General, and 
other officials. This source of income was, however, becoming 
nearly exhausted — the previous grants having been so enormous 
as to cover nearly all the desirable lands in the province from 
which the Indian title had been removed. This new acquisition 
of territory from New Hampshire, if the lands could be re-grant- 
ed, promised a rich and almost unlimited harvest of fees; and 
besides the perquisites of office which might thus be obtained by 
r e-granting the lands, the Governor would be enabled to distrib- 
ute them at his pleasure among his favorites and friends, thereby 
furnishing them, as was supposed, with the ready means of mak- 
ing fortunes, by disposing of them to the settlers and others. 

Neither the interest of the crown nor that of the public re- 
quired the making of these new grants. The declared object of 
the crown in authorizing the colonial Governors to grant lands 
was to promote the clearing up and cultivation of the country, 
and they were forbidden in their instructions to grant them unless 
they were needed by the grantees for actual settlement. 

Prior to the promulgation of Lieut-Governor Colden's 
proclamation in the spring of 1765, before mentioned, which an- 



nounced the change of jurisdiction, about one hundred and thirty 
townships had been chartered within the territory by New 
Hampshire. The lands had been either granted to, or purchased 
by New England men, who were rapidly removing to and set- 
tling upon them There was no desire in New York to emigrate 
to this territory — there was no demand in that province for these 
lands for purposes of cultivation. All this was well known to 
Lieut-Governor Colden, as well as to his official and unofficial 
advisers ; but the temptation arising from the money to be pock- 
eted and the patr§nage to be wielded, made him regardless of the 
claims and rights of others, and he proceeded at once to re-grant 
the lands in large masses to the officers of his government and 
others, principally residents of this city — not forgetting in his 
liberal donations to his favorites and friends, to take very prudent 
care of himself and family. And so rapidly were these grants 
made that nearly all the valuable land that had been settled upon, 
situated on the west side of the Green Mountains, was covered 
with New York patents within a few weeks after the reception of 
the King's order by the Lieut. -Governor annexing the territory to 
the province, and before the settlers could have had any oppor- 
tunity to apply at New York for a confirmation of their New- 
Hampshire titles. 

Such was the condition of the New Hampshire claimants 
who had eeated themselves nearest the old province of New- 
York. The settlers on the east side of the mountain, whose 
lands were more remote from the city speculators and less covet- 
ed by them, may in general be said to have tared somewhat bet- 
ter, most of them being allowed the privilege of purchasing their 
lands a second time, by paying the exorbitant patent fees of the 
Lieut. -Governor, and his associate crown officers. 

On the west side of the mountain the New Hampshire 
claimants met with few favors. So pressing indeed were the de- 
mands of the speculators, and so greedy were the New York offi- 
cials for the fees to be obtained from land patents, that even the 
solemn prohibition of the crown was insufficient to restrain their 
issue. By an Order of the King in Council, made July 24, 
1767, on application of the settlers, the Governors of New York 
were forbidden in the most peremptory terms and " on pain of 
his majesty's highest displeasure," from making any more grants 
within the disputed territory; but the order was put at defiance. 



(12) 

and wholly disregarded — Lieut. -Governor Golden and his suc- 
cessors proceeding still to issue patents, as if no such order had 
been made. 

The character and extent of these grants may in a great 
measure be ascertained from the records now remaining in the 
office of the Secretary of State, at Albany. 

One of the noticable features of these grants, particularly 
those of an early date, is the irregular shape of the tracts of land 
which they describe. Instead of townships in a square or rec- 
tangular form bordering on each other, like those of New Hamp- 
shire, the New York patents would appear to have been issued 
upon surveys made to include the rich valley lands along the 
streams, and to avoid the rougher hills and mountains ; and they 
were thus scattered over the territory in detached parcels and in 
all sorts of shapes, some of them having ten or more angles or 
corners. 

These New York patents were in general issued for the ben- 
efit of a comparatively small number of persons, and of course 
in very large quantities to most of them. A few of these fa- 
vored individuals may be mentioned. Among them Attorney 
General Kempe came in for a very large, though unascertained 
quantity of land ; William Cockburn, a noted surveyor, for 
30,000 acres, and Simon Metcalf, another surveyor, for 28,000 
acres. Wm. Smith, a member of the Council, and author of the 
history of New York, had 46,000 acres; James Duane, before 
mentioned, 68,000 acres ; John Kelly, a New York City 
lawyer, 115,000 acres ; and Goldsbrow Banyar, Secretary to 
the Governor and Council, 145,000 acres. Besides these, there 
were many other grantees of lesser, though of large quantities — 
ranging from 2,000 to 20,000 acres each. 

Nor did the New York Colonial Governors content them- 
selves with their office fees for issuing patents ; they also took 
special care to provide themselves with very respectable portions 
of the lands they granted. 

By the King's instructions to the Governors of New York, 
lands were only to be granted, as before stated, to persons desir- 
ing them for actual cultivation ; and in order to guard against 
grants for speculative purposes, no individual was to receive a 
quantity exceeding one thousand acres. But the object of the 
King in making this limitation was wholly perverted by his Gov- 



(ifl) 

emors, who, by the fraudulent use of nominal grantees, issued 
their patents for the benefit of themselves and their triends 
for any quantity they chose, knowing the lands were not 
wanted for actual settlement, but only for purposes of specu- 
lation. In this manner the large grants which have already been 
mentioned were made. And //a/s Lieut. -Governor Golden, in 
making his grants, not only provided largely for the members of 
his family, but reserved for himself 21,000 acres by issuing pat- 
cuts in the names of twenty-one of his friends for 1,000 acres 
each, who immediately conveyed the land to him. 

Lord Dunmore, who administered the government for the 
King but about eight months, during parts of the years 1770 and 
1771, in this manner obtained 51,000 acres lying in one body in 
the present county of Addison, in the State of Vermont, embrac- 
ing a portion of the beautiful lake which bears his name. The 
patent was issued to fiity-one individuals, among whom were sev- 
eral members of his council, Secretary Banyar, James Duane, 
Simon Metcalf and John Kelly, before mentioned, and other 
noted speculators. The patent bore date July 8, 1771, and five 
days afterwards, on the 13th day of the same month, every one 
of the fifty-one patentees conveyed their shares to the Governor. 

In like manner his successor, Governor Trvon, a few months 
later, provided himself with 32,000 acres through the instrumen- 
tality of the same set of public officers and land traders. He 
also by the same mode furnished his son-in-law, the notorious 
Edmund Fanning, with several large tracts of land, including 
one full township of six miles square. All of these grants of t he 
Governors to themselves and members of their families were 
made in direct and palpable violation of the King's order in coun- 
cil of July, 1767, prohibiting them in the strongest possible lan- 
guage from making any further grants. These patents having 
been issued, not only without the authority of the crown, but in 
defiance of it, would seem very clearly to have been illegal and 
void, and they would doubtless have been declared so by any 
impartial tribunal competent to decide upon their validity. No 
such tribunal could, however be resorted to by the settlers— the 
forms of judicial proceedings constituting an important part of 
the governmental machinery contrived by their adversaries to 
overcome and subdue them.* 

To these ami such like rapacious and mercenary claimants 

*See Note 4. 



were the early inhabitants of the New Hampshire Grants re- 
quired by the New York rulers to surrender lands which they 
had once fairly purchased, and had made more valuable by cul- 
tivation and improvement. The settlers were freemen, — intelli- 
gent, hardy and brave. Is it surprising that they should have re- 
sisted ? Would it not, indeed, have been matter of astonishment 
if they had done otherwise ? 

The settlers in various publications maintained the rightful- 
ness of their forcible opposition to the measures of the New 
York claimants and government, on the principles which justify 
revolution, and seemingly with entire success. The American 
people revolted from the mother country, because of the imposi- 
tion of taxes, which though small in amount, were founded on a 
principle that would allow the extortion of any further sum the 
parliament might at any time think proper to demand ; thus de- 
stroying the security by which they held the residue of their prop- 
erty, and leaving it at the mercy of the government. In the case 
of the inhabitants of the New Hampshire Grants the principle 
of government exaction was carried at once by New York to its 
utmost extent, by requiring of the settlers — not a fraction of their 
property — but an immediate surrender of their worldly estate — 
leaving them houseless, and most of them penniless. If revo- 
lution was justifiable in the former case, as is now universally ad- 
mitted, it would seem to have been much more clearly so in the 
latter ? 

If the measures adopted by the settlers to defend themselves 
and their property against the open and covert attacks of their 
enemies — the Yorkers — sometimes wear the appearance of un- 
feeling harshness, they will, I think, be found on due considera- 
tion, to have been of a character well suited to the occasion, and 
in general no more severe than wisdom and sound policy dictated 
as a means of protection, and to save the necessity of resorting 
to the infliction of still greater evils. And when it is remember- 
ed that a complete separation from the government of a powerful 
province and State was forcibly effected, with but a trifling injury 
to property, and with small, if any, sacrifice of human life,* we 
shall, I think, find quite as much to approve and admire in the 
acts and measures of those conducting it, as to condemn. 

See Note 5. 



THE FOLLOWING NOTES ARE ADDED IN 1872. 



NOTE 1, PAGE 6. 



rhe document referred to in the text has been published in the Collections of the New 

York Historical Society, for i8 7 o, from which it would seem that it was prepared about 17 8 S 

Bed on the boundary question then pending between New York and Massachusetts I 

^eparedbyMr.Duane.andissubstantuOly the same as his ar.ument before 



NOTE 2, PAGE 7. 






ma i!t H 6 7t"T u thCSe 3nd thC ° ther hiSt ° rical statements in this Add ^. Terence is 

d and the * , " ?V ''"' ***** * ' 86S ' "^ thc ^"^ «• -l.ec 
ted, and the subject of the controversy with New York treated at large. 



NOTE 3, PAGE 7. 

bv o,h h 'r7 h r er ° f K,nS Char ' eS "^ hem * M ^ S-ith in his History of New York, and 
2 " £*' " tm S t0 the Duke "-D ^e land from the west side of Connecticut 

nmr to the east s.de of Delaware Bay." and such, in ,S6o, was supposed by the wr te to be 
- 'anguage. But u, the original charter, preserved in the State Library at Albanv t e word 
■ no. found, after that of Connecticut. The actual grant was of - all the and from 
• S«l« Of Connecticut tothe west side of Delaware Bay." The charter of C " e c ,u 
brfbeen granted by Sesame King Charles two years previous (l6 6 a .) and the colony -I 
well known » England to reach within about twenty m iles of the Hudson. If the words 
of Z c r l t 0fC0nneCtiM ' t " we - ""-ded to apply to the colony.., the language 

wol . "L 77 t0 . ,mP ° rt ' ,hC diffiCUlty ° f *"** the P r °P er «»t Of i te terr^orV 

be removed, and all claim of New York under it to reach eastward toConnecticut river 
lude Vermont within its limits, would be at once extinguished 



(i6) 

NOTE 4, PAGE 13. 

The quantity of Vermont lands granted by the several governors of New York, from the 
spring of 1765 to the commencement of the Revolution, for which patent fees werj receivable, 
exceeded 2,100,000 acres, more than 1.900,000 acres of which were granted in direct viola- 
tion of the King's Order in Council, of July, 1767, prohibiting any such grants. 

The quantity of lands thus granted by the several governors during the above period, as 
appears by the colonial records at Albany, with the amount of fees allowable to each, was as 
follows : 

Lt. Gov. Colden, 965,500 acres, his fees being $30,171, 81 
Governor Moore, 144,620 " " " " 4,519.37 

Gov. Dunmore, 455,950 " " " " 14,248,44 

Governor Tryon, 549,540 " " •' " 17,173,12 



2,115,610 ?66, 112,74 

For these same grants the fees to the Attorney General, the Surveyor General, thi 
tary of the Province, the Clerk of the Council, the colony Auditor and the Receiver General, 
amounted to $124,820,99 more, making the enormous levy on Vermont lands for patent fees of 
§190,933,73. For a list of these grants see Collections of the Vermont Historical Society, Vol . 
I, page 147—158. 



NOTE 5, PAGE 15. 

No lives were lost in the actual contest between the settlers and the New York govern- 
ment, or with its land claimants as such. In 1784, after the Vermont government had been in 
successful operation for six years, in consequence of opposition to its authority, in the town of 
Guilford a small body of State Militia was sent, and for a time, stationed there. In a skirmish 
in January of that year one Silvanus Fisk of the Militia received a bullet wound of which 
he died a few months afterwards. In March following, Daniel Spicer in coming from Mas- 
sachusetts into Guilford in the night, was hailed by a Militia sentinel, and not giving such 
answer as was desired, was fired upon and mortally wounded. If these deaths occuring under 
such circumstances, so long after the actual separation of the State from New York are to be 
considered as belonging to the original controversy, then there was a sacrifice in it, of two hu- 
man lives — otherwise none. The Westminster massacre of March 1775 was in a contest be - 
tween Whigs and Tories as such, for which the controversy with New York was not responsi- 
ble. See on this point the report of the Cumberland County Whig Committee in Slade's 
State Papers page 55, Colden to Ld. Dartmouth of April 5, 1775, and Hall's Eastern Vt. 239. 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 




014 042 987 9 



